Industry: beyond interoperability: pushing the performance of sensor network IP stacks

ABSTRACT

Interoperability is essential for the commercial adoption of wireless sensor networks. However, existing sensor network architectures have been developed in isolation and thus interoperability has not been a concern. Recently, IP has been proposed as a solution to the interoperability problem of low-power and lossy networks (LLNs), considering its open and standards-based architecture at the network, transport, and application layers. We present two complete and interoperable implementations of the IPv6 protocol stack for LLNs, one for Contiki and one for TinyOS, and show that the cost of interoperability is low: their performance and overhead is on par with state-of-the-art protocol stacks custom built for the two platforms. At the same time, extensive testbed results show that the ensemble performance of a mixed network with nodes running the two interoperable stacks depends heavily on implementation decisions and parameters set at multiple protocol layers. In turn, these results argue that the current industry practice of interoperability testing does not cover the crucial topic of the performance and motivate the need for generic techniques that quantify the performance of such networks and configure their run-time behavior.

References

1. P. Buonadonna, J. Hill, and D. Culler. Active message communication for tiny networked sensors, 2001. Available from www.tinyos.net.
2. K. K. Chang and D. Gay. Language support for interoperable messaging in sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2005 workshop on Software and compilers for embedded systems, pages 1--9, Dallas, Texas, 2005.
3. S. Dawson-Haggerty. Design, implementation, and evaluation of an embedded IPv6 stack. Master's thesis, UC Berkeley, 2010.
4. S. Dawson-Haggerty, X. Jiang, G. Tolle, J. Ortiz, and D. Culler. sMAP - a Simple Measurement and Actuation Profile for Physical Information. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys), November 2010.
5. A. Dunkels. Full TCP/IP for 8-bit architectures. In Proceedings of The International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (MobiSys), San Francisco, CA, USA, May 2003.
6. A. Dunkels, F. Österlind, and Z. He. An adaptive communication architecture for wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (ACM SenSys), Sydney, Australia, November 2007.
7. A. Dunkels and J-P Vasseur. IP for Smart Objects, September 2008. IPSO Alliance White Paper 1, available from www.ipso-alliance.org.
8. M. Durvy, J. Abeillé, P. Wetterwald, C. O'Flynn, B. Leverett, E. Gnoske, M. Vidales, G. Mulligan, N. Tsiftes, N. Finne, and A. Dunkels. Making Sensor Networks IPv6 Ready. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (ACM SenSys), Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, November 2008.
9. M. Durvy and M. Valente. Making Smart Objects IPv6 Ready: Where are we? In Proceedings of the 2011 IAB Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop, March 2011.
10. R. Fonseca, O. Gnawali, K. Jamieson, and P. Levis. Four-bit wireless link estimation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (ACM HotNets), Atlanta, Georgia, USA, November 2007.
11. O. Gnawali, R. Fonseca, K. Jamieson, D. Moss, and P. Levis. Collection tree protocol. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (ACM SenSys), Berkeley, CA, USA, 2009.
12. J. Hui and D. Culler. IP is Dead, Long Live IP for Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (ACM SenSys), Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, November 2008.
13. J. Hui and JP. Vasseur. Rpl option for carrying rpl information in data-plane datagrams. Internet Draft (Work in Progress), IETF, 2010.
14. X. Jiang, M. Van Ly, J. Taneja, P. Dutta, and D. Culler. Experiences with a high-fidelity wireless building energy auditing network. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (ACM SenSys), Berkeley, CA, USA, 2009.
15. J. Ko, J. Eriksson, N. Tsiftes, S. Dawson-Haggerty, A. Terzis, A. Dunkels, and D. Culler. ContikiRPL and TinyRPL: Happy Together. In Proceedings of the workshop on Extending the Internet to Low power and Lossy Networks (IP+SN 2011), April 2011.
16. G. Montenegro, N. Kushalnagar, J. Hui, and D. Culler. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks. Internet proposed standard RFC 4944, September 2007.
17. V. Paxson. Automated packet trace analysis of TCP implementations. In Proceedings of the conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications (ACM SIGCOMM), Cannes, France, 1997.
18. V. Paxson, M. Allman, S. Dawson, W. Fenner, J. Griner, I. Heavens, K. Lahey, J. Semke, and B. Volz. Known TCP Implementation Problems. RFC 2525 (Informational), March 1999.
19. B. Priyantha, A. Kansal, M. Goraczko, and F. Zhao. Tiny web services: design and implementation of interoperable and evolvable sensor networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (ACM SenSys), pages 253--266, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2008.
20. P. Thubert. Rpl objective function 0. Internet Draft (Work in Progress), IETF, 2010.
21. J. P. Vasseur and A. Dunkels. Interconnecting Smart Objects with IP: The Next Internet. Morgan Kaufmann, 2010.
22. T. Winter (Ed.), P. Thubert (Ed.), and RPL Author Team. RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks. Internet Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-18, work in progress.

Index Terms

• General and reference

  • Document types

    • Computing standards, RFCs and guidelines

• Networks

  • Network protocols